SC’s stray dog order draws mixed reactions from animal activists, locals, lawyers

New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s refusal to recall its earlier directions on the management of stray dogs in public places, while issuing fresh directions for stricter implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) framework across the country, has drawn mixed reactions from animal rights activists, dog lovers, advocates, and residents on Tuesday.

Animal rights activist Gauri Maulekhi described the order as balanced and said the court had given states flexibility in implementing measures according to local needs.

“I think that earlier the court had said to remove dogs from different places, but now, while keeping the situation under control, these decisions have largely been left to the states, so they can act as they find appropriate. The Supreme Court has also allowed the establishment of Animal Birth Control centres in every state. I would say it is a fairly balanced order. Now, it is necessary to have a large ABC centre in every area,” Maulekhi told IANS.

A dog lover said that the Supreme Court had effectively continued its earlier order in the matter.

“The update in the case filed in the Supreme Court by animal lovers and dog lovers is that today the Supreme Court has put a stay on the petition, and the earlier Supreme Court order in the matter will continue to remain in effect,” the person said.

Former Union Minister Vijay Goel welcomed the court’s directions and said his organisation had long been raising concerns related to stray dog attacks and public inconvenience.

“I welcome the Supreme Court’s order on the issue of stray dogs. Our organisation, Lok Abhiyan, has been working for several years on the problems faced by people due to stray dogs, and we have continuously raised this issue,” he said.

Residents of Greater Noida also reacted positively to the judgment.

One resident said: “It is a good judgment. There are many incidents of quarrels due to stray dogs. So, it is necessary to establish ABC centres.”

However, advocate Nanita Sharma criticised the ruling, saying it did not adequately address cruelty against animals.

“The judgment has not come out in a very balanced way. They have spoken a lot about humans, but they have not said much about animals. There is a lot of cruelty happening against animals as well. The Supreme Court has demanded action from states and Union Territories. The court has also allowed euthanasia. So, I think the order of November 8 has once again been repeated,” she said.

Advocate Vivek Sharma, meanwhile, termed the judgment a positive step by the judiciary.

“It is a very good step by the judiciary, and a very good judgment. The judgment has mainly been divided into three parts.”

The Supreme Court refused to recall its earlier directions on the management of stray dogs in public places, while issuing a series of fresh directions to ensure stricter implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) framework across the country.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria dismissed a batch of applications filed by dog lovers and animal rights groups seeking modifications to the directions issued by the apex court in November last year.

The directions mandated that stray dogs picked up from sensitive public places such as schools, hospitals, bus stands and railway stations must not be released back at the same locations after sterilisation and vaccination.

Pronouncing the judgment, the Justice Vikram Nath-led Bench stressed that the “right to life with dignity” includes the right to live without fear of dog attacks in public spaces, and pulled up authorities for failing to effectively address the growing menace of stray dog bites.

Referring to multiple reports of attacks, the top court observed that the issue has assumed “staggering dimensions” and reflects serious deficiencies in the implementation of existing directions and statutory rules.

The bench warned that erring officials who fail to comply with its directions would be liable for contempt of court and disciplinary action.

Issuing comprehensive directions, the Supreme Court ordered all states and Union Territories (UTs) to take time-bound steps to strengthen infrastructure under the ABC Rules. It mandated the establishment of at least one fully functional ABC centre in every district, equipped with surgical facilities, trained personnel and adequate logistics support.

Authorities have also been directed to expand the number of such centres based on population density and geographical requirements, and to undertake capacity-building measures, including training of staff, strengthening of shelters and coordinated vaccination drives.

The apex court also ordered that anti-rabies vaccines and immunoglobulin must be adequately available in all government medical facilities, along with a robust public health response mechanism to deal with dog bite cases.

Authorities were allowed to take legally permissible measures, including euthanasia, in cases involving rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably aggressive dogs, to effectively mitigate threats to human life.

IANS